Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
The Weight of the Vote.
If you vote, you agree to authorise someone else to order you around, in the hope that this largely unknown to you person will order everyone else to do what you want them to do.
If you refuse to vote, other people may still choose someone largely unknown to them to order you around, but the situation is now morally different; you did not authorise anyone to order others around in the hope that they will be forced to do what you want them to do.
People sometimes do bad things, and it is morally permissible to prevent people doing bad things to you. Therefore, it may be morally permissible to authorise someone to order people around insofar as the exercise of authority is limited to preventing people doing bad things to others.
On the other hand, if we authorise someone to order everyone around to stop people doing bad things, but we do not possess the knowledge of what ‘bad things’ objectively are, then it may not be morally permissible or rational to authorise someone to order people around on those indeterminate grounds.
Furthermore, if we authorise someone to order everyone around to stop people doing bad things, but we do not have the authority to prevent that someone from doing bad things themselves, then it may not be morally permissible or rational to authorise anyone to order everyone around to stop people doing bad things.
If the only legitimate authority is to do what is objectively right, then voting is at best superfluous, because every person already has the moral authority to do what is morally right, and no authority, under any circumstances, to do what is morally wrong. We must therefore understand voting (for representation) as an attempt to legitimise what is morally wrong.
If you vote, you agree to authorise someone else to order you around, in the hope that this largely unknown to you person will order everyone else to do what you want them to do.
If you refuse to vote, other people may still choose someone largely unknown to them to order you around, but the situation is now morally different; you did not authorise anyone to order others around in the hope that they will be forced to do what you want them to do.
People sometimes do bad things, and it is morally permissible to prevent people doing bad things to you. Therefore, it may be morally permissible to authorise someone to order people around insofar as the exercise of authority is limited to preventing people doing bad things to others.
On the other hand, if we authorise someone to order everyone around to stop people doing bad things, but we do not possess the knowledge of what ‘bad things’ objectively are, then it may not be morally permissible or rational to authorise someone to order people around on those indeterminate grounds.
Furthermore, if we authorise someone to order everyone around to stop people doing bad things, but we do not have the authority to prevent that someone from doing bad things themselves, then it may not be morally permissible or rational to authorise anyone to order everyone around to stop people doing bad things.
If the only legitimate authority is to do what is objectively right, then voting is at best superfluous, because every person already has the moral authority to do what is morally right, and no authority, under any circumstances, to do what is morally wrong. We must therefore understand voting (for representation) as an attempt to legitimise what is morally wrong.
Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
On the Legitimacy of Authority
No political system or process has the capacity to legitimise authority. Democracy is just a recent pretence at legitimising the rule of the majority over the minority, whereas the divine right of kings purported to legitimise the rule of minority over the majority. The only consistent, irrefutable source of authority is objective morality, that which is right according to the conditions of rational consciousness. Real authority cannot be owned or delegated by anyone to anyone; it is the logical structure of being that everyone is subject to. Anyone can embody it by consistently acting according to it. Those who embody authority may appear as if they themselves are the authority, but they are merely faithful servants of it. There are no legitimate rulers and never could be.
No political system or process has the capacity to legitimise authority. Democracy is just a recent pretence at legitimising the rule of the majority over the minority, whereas the divine right of kings purported to legitimise the rule of minority over the majority. The only consistent, irrefutable source of authority is objective morality, that which is right according to the conditions of rational consciousness. Real authority cannot be owned or delegated by anyone to anyone; it is the logical structure of being that everyone is subject to. Anyone can embody it by consistently acting according to it. Those who embody authority may appear as if they themselves are the authority, but they are merely faithful servants of it. There are no legitimate rulers and never could be.
The reverse psychology of PRIDE is evidently working as intended. https://youtu.be/oKTnDPpe3Ao
It is morally imperative for Aboriginal people to speak out against nativist supremacism (the voice, original ownership, native title), the ideological foundation of Nazism, being imposed in their name. It won’t do to claim that nobody from the ABC came to ask you.
Deposits are a liability of the bank, not an asset (as the author of this article correctly points out), but he also claims the bank “keeps around 10% of deposits in hand” to pay out any cash withdrawals and use the rest to make loans, which is nonsense. You cannot lend your liabilities (it is what you owe, not what you have) or use your liabilities to pay your liabilities. Current Deposits are what the bank is contractually committed to pay you on demand, so if everyone demanded their money on the same day the bank promised to pay them all, but they cannot, which proves that modern banking is based on fraud. The truth is the banks create new money (which amounts to stealing from everyone’s purse) by ‘issuing credit’, they do not lend money they already have. 97% of money in existence (M3) is created by the banks.
The problem is in plain sight and most are still not seeing it for what it is. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/open-letter-to-government-regarding
“Critical pedagogy regards the claims that students make in response to social-justice issues not as propositions to be assessed for their truth value, but as expressions of power that function to re-inscribe and perpetuate social inequalities.” But without the laws of sense that underpin truth-value our intentions become nonsensical and cannot be consistently realised, therefore powerless, which neutralises the expressed purpose of critical pedagogy. Another error of critical theory is the belief that just because it is impossible to have an objective viewpoint then all viewpoints are valid, but this overlooks the distinction between consistency and contradiction. A subjective viewpoint that is inconsistent is meaningless, therefore not a viewpoint but nonsense, therefore false, whereas a consistent viewpoint is meaningful and can be integrated with the viewpoints of others as a common idea. The socially constructed reality that critical theorists talk about is made of meaningful consistently integrated ideas, not just any subjective viewpoint. All language is based on logical consistency, and even though it is socially constructed it has a common, consistent function. Whether that function is subjective or objective is irrelevant; it is all we have to understand one another and to create meaning. I therefore do not worry about ‘the woke’ but only for them. They are powerless to do anything meaningful apart from hurting themselves.
Joe Hildebrand is implying here that, for example, Hitler was ‘always right’ to persecute Jews, because (or IF) the majority supported the ideology of Aryan Nazism and their totalitarian programme. This is of course absurd, a denial of moral principles to which human choices are subject to. Another way, human judgement cannot be subject to a moral principle if the moral principle is subject to human judgement. Joe is endorsing moral relativism, expresses support for nativist supremacism and waves the blood & soil flag. https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/growing-resistance-where-it-all-went-wrong-for-struggling-yes-campaign/news-story/95c4b9d5596e96f157c1d273068b19fe
The intelligence apparatus of a modern state (such as France) employs the most competent, brilliant individuals. Similarly, the WEF and the associated global think-tanks exude extraordinary competence and depth of analysis. It is no longer reasonable to assume that global events are spontaneous anomalies for which the intelligence apparatus was unprepared and failed to factor into its strategic planning. If a revolution/revolt were impending, it would be imperative for the state to preemptively lead it, in order to control the outcomes. A scripted pretext followed by scripted, intentionally amplified violence may be a government strategy to covertly address (or otherwise exploit) the problem of ethno-religious, migrant ghettoes, by focalising the social threat they pose and thus energising an ethno-nationalistic (nativist) backlash. Two possible aims come to mind, national or global, respectively: 1) to eliminate/criminalise all migrant ethno-enclaves and force assimilation (or expulsion); 2) split France into autonomous ethno-religious zones/states, accelerating national fragmentation, weakening, and subsequent dependency on global leadership.
This is how subconscious imprinting works. The small print talks about the NO vote being ahead, which is a conversation with your ‘slow’ rational faculties, but the symbols in the background imprint the YES sentiment in your subconscious mind, via ‘fast’ emotive imagery. You may be scrolling and not even consciously register these symbols, but your subconscious sees it, and is influenced by it, priming you for the change of mind.
The themes of original ownership, First Nations and the indigenous Voice stem from a far right, racial-supremacist conspiracy theory based on the following false claims: a) that indigenous people are excluded/denied shared ownership of public land; b) that indigenous descent justifies higher moral status or social and political rights of the natives (including Royal titles); c) that all non-indigenous citizens are occupiers/trespassers on the indigenous rights; d) that the principle of equal rights for all citizens irrespective of origin, race or ethnicity amounts to racial persecution of the indigenous population (sometimes equated to 'genocide'). Conspiracy theories promoting racial resentment/guilt are a form of incitement to violent extremism and hate crimes, under the guise of self-defence and justice, by promoting a false belief of systemic, racially-motivated persecution and oppression. The said conspiracy theory echoes the nativist rhetoric of Aryan-supremacism and shares its 'blood & soil' symbolism. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/open-letter-to-government-regarding
My submission to the Inquiry into COVID-19 Vaccination Status (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill 2022 and the Fair Work Amendment (Prohibiting COVID-19 Vaccine Discrimination) Bill 2023 has been accepted and is now protected by parliamentary privilege.
https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=c1d7b3dc-5083-4293-925e-08c53588ea97&subId=744521
https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=c1d7b3dc-5083-4293-925e-08c53588ea97&subId=744521
An action can be useful to immoral ends, therefore the criterion of usefulness is not a sufficient standard of moral/ethical judgement. Utilitarianism does not recognise the distinction between good and evil ends.
Greater Good is a Euphemism for the Utility of Evil
To do Good is to act in any way that is not ‘contrary to the structure of being’, which is Evil. Good and Evil are a binary moral property of intentional action. Things and states are neither good nor evil in the moral sense; when we call a thing ‘good’, we mean that it is valuable in the utilitarian sense, which is a matter of degree, useful to our purpose, not that it is the binary opposite of Evil. The idea of Greater Good conflates the utilitarian sense of Good with the moral sense, in order to falsely justify Evil as a necessary condition of the Good.
To do Good is to act in any way that is not ‘contrary to the structure of being’, which is Evil. Good and Evil are a binary moral property of intentional action. Things and states are neither good nor evil in the moral sense; when we call a thing ‘good’, we mean that it is valuable in the utilitarian sense, which is a matter of degree, useful to our purpose, not that it is the binary opposite of Evil. The idea of Greater Good conflates the utilitarian sense of Good with the moral sense, in order to falsely justify Evil as a necessary condition of the Good.
A massive piece of research that will take me a while to digest: https://richardpoe.substack.com/p/how-the-british-invented-communism
Substack
How the British Invented Communism (And Blamed It on the Jews)
The Untold Story of Karl Marx, Leon Trotsky, MI6, and the Russian Revolution
"A free society is regarded as one that does not engage, on principle, in attempting to control what people find meaningful, and a totalitarian society is regarded as one that does, on principle, attempt such control." Polanyi, Michael, and Harry Prosch. "Meaning". The University of Chicago Press 1975, p182.
Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
A friendly reminder to racial or tribal supremacists about international law: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-convention-elimination-all-forms-racial